Gerneral Vlasov's 2 million man army

Dunash

Banned
The Germans caught on too late the potential of General Vlasov's Army. WI they had from 1942 allowed him to recruit pro-German Russians (or at least anti-Stalin), Ukranians, Kalmuks, Kazaks, Cossacks & other ethnics, resulting in an army of 2 million by 1943? How would the Germans have used these troops and how would it have altered the war?
 
There are those who say it could have won Hitler the war. Of course, the most vocal proponents of that thesis (writing in the 1950s and early 60s) were, we now know, in receipt of funding from exile organisations from various nations within the USSR that were holding out for a US invasion and a greater role in their countries post-WWIII. Still, a concerted strategy of 'liberation' might have made that drive to Moscow feasible, and from that point on...

Of course, we are talking about Hitler. That strategy would have to be developed and implemented completely without his knowledge. Cooperating with Slavic nations? Impossible. If he had been just a little saner, or if he had left the running of the war to professionals, a strategy of 'freeing the nations of Europe from Bolshevist terror regimes' (however temporary) could not only have worked, but also been sold with some success coming, as it was, from a regime that believed unreservedly in national identity on an ethnic and racial basis. But of course, if he had just been a little saner he wouldn't have started the war in the first place, so the point is kinda moot.

Still, the thought of an Eastern Europe dominated by Nazi Germany, completely 'judenrein', and governed by ultranationalist, militaristic puppet regimes running their little tinpot ethnically cleansed states to supply Germany with raw materials... Yuck
 
Dunash said:
How would the Germans have used these troops and how would it have altered the war?
The war would perhaps last somewhat longer, be bit more nasty and end with the borders between the Allies and the USSR a little further east than in OTL.

Vlasov's troops would be used as anti-partisan security forces (as in OTL), but here would be more of them in this ATL. Parts of the local population might be more pro-Axis if some nationalist forces fought side by side with the Axis armies, and the rest would be persecuted. That would secure a more steady flow of supplies and free up German troops, and unfortunately kill quite a few more civilians as partisans and Vlasov's men burned villages and hunted each other. It probably would end as it did, though, but mayby a month or two later with most of Austria, Hungary and the former Czechoslovakia in Allied hands...

Best regards and all!

- Mr.Bluenote.
 
Germany had enough problems supplying their own troops on the Eastern front, if you add in an extra 2 million man slavic force....how in the world are they gonna fight? will they even have enough food let alone ammunition?? :confused:
 
Amit said:
Germany had enough problems supplying their own troops on the Eastern front, if you add in an extra 2 million man slavic force....how in the world are they gonna fight? will they even have enough food let alone ammunition?? :confused:

They'd most likely be predominantly light troops, armed with captured Soviet materiel and used in counterinsurgency and other 'disposable' roles. If we assume that the scheme of reducing the level of partisan activity works (and there'd probably be fewer deaths as the local population could communicate with the troops who, unlike the Wehrmacht often did, would be unlikely to kill everybody and let God sort it out when facing their own countrymen). Thus, the increased productivity of local industry (which, again, a more enlightened policy would selectively keep in place rather than simply deport its labour force to Germany indiscriminately) could just about manage to turn out enough smallarms ammunition and gear. There'd still be desperate shortage, of course (with the best of everything going to German and western SS units), but I think with just a little more long-term management views of the Eastern European economies, they could have supported the extra weight of a 'primitive' army. I'd imagine them about the level of today's African 'tribal militias' - all riflemen, and desperately happy to have enough to eat day in, day out. On the defense, such units could beef up the lines and free direly needed German soldiers for other roles. On the offensive, they could be used to hold and 'pacify' hinterland.

I don't think it'd be enough for victory, but who knows.
 
carlton_bach said:
Of course, we are talking about Hitler. That strategy would have to be developed and implemented completely without his knowledge. Cooperating with Slavic nations? Impossible. If he had been just a little saner, or if he had left the running of the war to professionals, a strategy of 'freeing the nations of Europe from Bolshevist terror regimes' (however temporary) could not only have worked, but also been sold with some success coming, as it was, from a regime that believed unreservedly in national identity on an ethnic and racial basis. But of course, if he had just been a little saner he wouldn't have started the war in the first place, so the point is kinda moot.

Agreed, it would be like asking what WWII would be without Hitler.
 
Well, just eliminate the Hitler problem - at the right time

What if Hitler gets killed in an accident or by a bomb in June or July 1941 - Hitler needs to live long enough so that the Nazis are irrevocably committed to attacking east - because I'm not sure Goering would have decided to do it on his own.


Would his successors be as rigid on anti-slavism?

Hitler's successor could have - a) done the war exactly as it was
b) done the war as it was for the first two years and get more conservative at the end, ultimately losing anyway. c) Be more inclined to accept a separate peace at some point, without changing racial policies or d) retained the goal of total defeat of Soviets but adopted the Vlasov strategy

or e) some combination of the above
 
raharris1973 said:
What if Hitler gets killed in an accident or by a bomb in June or July 1941 - Hitler needs to live long enough so that the Nazis are irrevocably committed to attacking east - because I'm not sure Goering would have decided to do it on his own.


Would his successors be as rigid on anti-slavism?

Hitler's successor could have - a) done the war exactly as it was
b) done the war as it was for the first two years and get more conservative at the end, ultimately losing anyway. c) Be more inclined to accept a separate peace at some point, without changing racial policies or d) retained the goal of total defeat of Soviets but adopted the Vlasov strategy

or e) some combination of the above


f) actually listening to army generals and having a chance to win in 1941. Or 1942.
 
Purely military operational changes won't bring victory

aktarian said:
f) actually listening to army generals and having a chance to win in 1941. Or 1942.

Operational changes might help, although David Glantz has alot of skepticism on them. But, even the loss of Moscow doesn't necessarilly mean the USSR is done, especially when there's no difference to what the Germans will do when you surrender compared to when you fight.
 
raharris1973 said:
Operational changes might help, although David Glantz has alot of skepticism on them. But, even the loss of Moscow doesn't necessarilly mean the USSR is done, especially when there's no difference to what the Germans will do when you surrender compared to when you fight.

But would Hitler's sucessor be as bad re occupied territories than Hitler?
 

Straha

Banned
aktarian said:
But would Hitler's sucessor be as bad re occupied territories than Hitler?
if its himmler yes anyone but himler no. Himmler would be uniquely extreme, we're talking genocide of bavarinas,danes or _french_ with HIM.
 
SurfNTurfStraha said:
if its himmler yes anyone but himler no. Himmler would be uniquely extreme, we're talking genocide of bavarinas,danes or _french_ with HIM.


In fact Himmler may have been even worse then Hitler himself. That is certainly a nightmare.
 
If the POD is that from the start of Barbarossa the Germans treat the Slavic population in the UUSR no worse than they treated them in the First World War and organized an antiSoviet Army yes this is a POD that lets Nazi Germany survive long enough to be A-Bombed. Initially Barbasossa was the Blumenkrieg because the German soldiers got so many flowers from the grateful locals. That soon changed.

It is disgusting but infortunately true to note that the Nazis could still take out their bloodlust on the Jews and gypsies and maybe even do something like starve Leningrad.
 

Straha

Banned
Brilliantlight said:
In fact Himmler may have been even worse then Hitler himself. That is certainly a nightmare.

yes thats kinda what I'm saying. Whose to say Himmler won't og against groups that hitler said were "Aryan" due to their not being like north germans culturally.
 
RONA

I believe that the Russian acronym for Vlasov's Liberation Army was RONA- can't recall what the initials stood for, though. Hey, maybe with more of these ex-Soviet troops earlier in the war serving on the eastern Front and in Yugoslavia conducting anti-partisan ops, more German troops could've been freed up for the defence of Normandy and other parts of FESTUNG EUROPA ? OTL there were many understrength static Wehrmacht divs at Normandy which comprised huge proportions of non-Germans, esp ex-Red Army conscripts from thruout the Soviet Empire captured during BARBAROSSA and given the opportunity to serve the Reich, although the majority of them AFAIK only fought against the Allies under compulsion, and most gladly accepted the opportunity to surrender to American or British troops as soon as they could (anybody read that anecdote from a 29th ID THE BLUE AND THE GRAY soldier at OMAHA Beach who, upon seeing such large nos. of non-German POWs taken, asked his CO "who exactly are we fighting, sir ?"). WI these relatively unreliable outfits, but in greater nos. than OTL, were left to hold the line in Yugoslavia and other parts of occupied Europe outside of the immediate invasion area, while morecrack Wehrmacht and Waffen SS formations were able to be deployed to France ?
 

Grey Wolf

Gone Fishin'
Donor
SurfNTurfStraha said:
if its himmler yes anyone but himler no. Himmler would be uniquely extreme, we're talking genocide of bavarinas,danes or _french_ with HIM.

Whats a Bavarina ? If you mean Bavarian, Himmler WAS Bavarian as were most of the early Nazis including Hess and Roehm

Besides, I think you are touting a populist image of Himmler, rather than a realistic one. Don't forget he was the HEAD of the SS, and all these foreign Waffen SS units were under his indirect command.

Jews, Slavs and Gypsies were the great Nazi hatreds, but within the word 'Slav' you have so many possibilities that its not anywhere near a catch-all. Croatia, Slovakia, Bulgaria could all be considered Slavic but were allies/vassals of the Nazis, and in Croatia with the Ustase you got one of the most vicious and extreme fascist governments anywhere

The main hatred of Slavs was in relation to Russians, though by extension Poles as the main threat came in to this. If the Nazis had differentiated more greatly, then Ruthenians, Ukrainians could have been seen as 'acceptable Slavs' in the same way as Croats

Grey Wolf
 

Valamyr

Banned
Brilliantlight said:
In fact Himmler may have been even worse then Hitler himself. That is certainly a nightmare.

Hitler was a moderate.

Amongst the Nazis, there were *hundreds* with much stronger views. A single madman wouldnt have been able to orchestrate the butchery we saw in OTL. Hundreds of them did so.
 
Melvin Loh said:
I believe that the Russian acronym for Vlasov's Liberation Army was RONA- can't recall what the initials stood for, though. Hey, maybe with more of these ex-Soviet troops earlier in the war serving on the eastern Front and in Yugoslavia conducting anti-partisan ops, more German troops could've been freed up for the defence of Normandy and other parts of FESTUNG EUROPA ? OTL there were many understrength static Wehrmacht divs at Normandy which comprised huge proportions of non-Germans, esp ex-Red Army conscripts from thruout the Soviet Empire captured during BARBAROSSA and given the opportunity to serve the Reich, although the majority of them AFAIK only fought against the Allies under compulsion, and most gladly accepted the opportunity to surrender to American or British troops as soon as they could (anybody read that anecdote from a 29th ID THE BLUE AND THE GRAY soldier at OMAHA Beach who, upon seeing such large nos. of non-German POWs taken, asked his CO "who exactly are we fighting, sir ?"). WI these relatively unreliable outfits, but in greater nos. than OTL, were left to hold the line in Yugoslavia and other parts of occupied Europe outside of the immediate invasion area, while morecrack Wehrmacht and Waffen SS formations were able to be deployed to France ?

Russian something Army, IIRC. Ro stood for 'Rossiya' = Greater Russia.

I doubt any number of Russian, Ukrainaian, or Baltic volunteers would free up German troops for defense elsewhere. The pacification of conquered Russian territory was a manpower sink of huge proportions, and the first few hundred thousand would be needed there. That would free up German troops (not first-line troops, but Wehrmacht all right) for offensive operations, but again, there's the huge, hungry Russian front to feed. If I were the OKW I might well be glad to have significant numbers of Russians, Ukrainians and Lithuanians fighting their way towards Moscow for me, but I would definitely not want to leave them alone with the task. Again, a lot of freed manpower gets absorbed almost immediately, especially if there is enough of an effect to carry the offensives further (across the Volga, frex).

What might happen is for the Slavic auxiliaries on the 'Atlantic Wall' to actually fight with a will. If you have a policy of 'ethnic liberation' on the part of the Nazis, they may well come to believe that the Germans are the ones guaranteeing their nation's continued freedom while the Allies are merely pawns of Stalin. Sort of 'defending Ukrainian Earth on the beaches of France'. Plus, the productivity of the foreign labour pool would be higher, and you wouldn't need so many troops to guard them.

I still don't think any of it would actually turn the tide. As the saying goes: "Count the T34s"
 
It was ROA, not RONA insignia . But one think to consider is that ROA was brught up under Wehrmacht and Himmler warmed up to them after July bomp plot, when it was too late anyway.
 
Grey Wolf said:
Whats a Bavarina ? If you mean Bavarian, Himmler WAS Bavarian as were most of the early Nazis including Hess and Roehm
I think that by writing Bavarians it was implied that it was catholics who might be persercuted by Himmler and his cronies. I might be wrong, but I seem to recall, that Himmler didn't like the Catholic Church very much!

Grey Wolf said:
Besides, I think you are touting a populist image of Himmler, rather than a realistic one. Don't forget he was the HEAD of the SS, and all these foreign Waffen SS units were under his indirect command.
Hmm, well Himmler was, if possible, more of a nutcase then anyone else in the Thrid Reich, but I have to agree with Grey Wolf - Himmler's Waffen SS did recruite quite a few foreign troops. There even was a moslem (bosnian, I think) SS unit.

The reason I suspect for the unwillingness to let Ukrainians, Russians and what not join the Wehtmacht early in the war, was that their lands were suppossed to be populated by Germans after the war and the locals either displaced or somehow enslaved - From a Nazi perspective it might not have seemed like a good idea to stick guns in their hands...

Best regards and all!

- Bluenote.
 
Top